Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AmandaNP (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 22 August 2016 (→Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion: decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Debresser|Amendment request: Debresser]] none none 29 July 2016
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Infoboxes|Amendment request: Infoboxes]] none (orig. case) 5 August 2016
Amendment request: Race and intelligence Motion (orig. case) 12 August 2016

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Debresser

Initiated by Debresser at 13:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive195#Debresser
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. User_talk:Debresser#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • I request the sanction against me be revoked and the other two parties strongly warned against trying to game the system to push their POV

Statement by Debresser

Two editors with a strong POV in the Israeli-Palestine-conflict area have removed information they consider to reflect negatively on Mahmoud Abbas, and have made other edits to that article, in disregard of serious objections by me as well as uninvolved editors, refusing to participate in discussions, using ever alternating baseless arguments in an attempt to push their POV, filing a baseless 1RR report against me at WP:AE in an attempt to use that forum to remove my resistance to their edits, and making personal attacks or belittling me and other dissident opinions. The report was made after I had made a second revert after 26 hours,[1][2] [3]. The sanction of a three month topic ban was imposed by Lord Roem[4] in disregard of several editors supporting my point of view and joining my request for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against Nableezy (and now Nishidani), and of the fact that only one other admin had expressed an opinion and was clearly against any sanctions, so the sanction is not even supported by a majority of admins. Likewise I fail to understand why Nableezy and Nishidani have not been sanctioned, even though their behavior was clearly POV-inspired, attempting to game the system, stonewalling on talkpage and independent forums, and included repeated reverts as well. I think the sanction is imposed without there being a problem in my editing, without a consensus among admins that there should be a sanction, in disregard of procedure, and in disregard of the obvious attempt to use WP:AE to remove resistance and push a POV, as well as the behavioral problems of the reporting editor himself, Nableezy, and his most staunch supporter, Nishidani, with whom he edits in concert. The coming with unclean hands and the sanction being applied not evenhandedly, are reasons to revoke the sanction. I think that a revert, well after the 24 hours of 1RR was the only way to force Nableezy and Nishidani to break the stonewalling of Nableezy and Nishidani and their refusal to reply to legitimate concerns. Their previous and consequent edits and behavior support that conclusion. I would like to stress that I am an 8 year editor with over 90,000 edits, active in many areas over this project, see User:Debresser/My work on Wikipedia, and I always try to edit neutrally and keep in mind the good of this wonderful project that is Wikipedia, see User:Debresser/My rewards.

Editors supporting me at WP:AE: Drsmoo, Sir Joseph, Only in death

Second admin against sanctions: no evidence of violation, cmt.

Using ever changing arguments to push POV: First Sepsis II (who was recently permanently topic banned at WP:AE) used the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 argument against other editors. They when I made the same edit, with improvements, Nableezy tries to say sources are not reliable, which they are, or when good sources are readily available, see Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources. They he tries to say it is recentism[5], and see Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM). Then he sees an outside opinion that it is undue,[6] so he plays that card too.[7] If he thinks it is undue, he could have rewritten it in shorter form, but all he has done is remove the paragraph altogether. See also further, that suggestions for a shorter version have been made, but still he reverted. This clearly shows that Nableezy considers all means legitimate, only to remove this information.

Refusing to participate in discussion or rendering discussion ineffective: When uninvolved editor TransporterMan proposed a compromise on the talkpage,[8] I agreed,[9] but Nableezy rejected the compromise based on his personal vendetta against me.[10] I took this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and Nableezy sabotaged that discussion.[11] Nableezy completely ignored the discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard,[12], even though I posted it on the talkpage.[13] Recently Nishidani added a new paragraph,[14] and my objections on the talkpage in Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar have been completely stonewalled by Nableezy and Nishidani,(1) without any content or policy based reply to my objections based on lack of relevance and reliable sources, and in blatant disregard and falsification of the results of the discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, which Nableezy opened, and where both independent editors who responded, agree with me that the source is not good for its purpose,[15][16] while Nableezy and Nishidani post long replies to smother all resistance.

(1) Especially telling of bad faith and gaming the system was the call by Nableezy to Nishidani to revert me after less than 4 hours of discussion and no outside opinions at a time he himself couldn't revert because of a previous revert.[17]

Proof Nableezy and Nishidani edit in concert: 1. [18] by Nishidani, which he then self-reverted to avoid a violation, followed by [19] by Nableezy. 2. Nishidani acted upon Nableezy's bad faith advice.[20] 3. The many talkpage discussions where I have seen them both and invariably support each other. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of repeated reverts: Nableezy after 1 day and 16 hours[21][22], Nableezy after 1 day and 15 hours[23][24]

Procedurally request ignored: I asked that Nishidani trim his post of 737 words in order that I could reply to it effectively.[25] That request was ignored, so an essential procedure has been violated and the resulting sanction should be void.

Example of insult and belittling comments by Nableezy: "Wtf are you babbling about?"

Example of insult and belittling comments by Nishidani: [26], [27], "That looks like a partisan rabbinical dismissal of Samaritan Israelitic origins, Dovid", What you or I think is irrelevant", "why in the fuck didn't you figure out the obvious in the first fucking place days ago? Messahge." ("Messahge" is "idiot" in Yiddish) Struck after Nishidani explained this was a typo and at most a Freudian slip.[28]

I thank Lord Roem for his patience on my request to reconsider sanction, and his willingness there to reconsider it after a month[29] or even to mitigate the sanction to a 0RR sanction.[30] I think there is no basis in the evidence presented at WP:AE to justify a sanction against me, and/or to not justify a sanction against Nableezy and/or Nishidani. In addition I attest to my good faith, and see no evidence of bad faith from my side at WP:AE. A sanction at WP:AE is a bad precedent, as recent comments have shown,[31][32] and I willingly take my changes here, as I did before at WP:AE when I (!) undid the withdraw by Nableezy, see the witdraw[33] and my undo.[34] At the same time, I hope that even if editors here will disagree with me, they will be willing to consider mitigating the sanction along the lines suggested by Lord Roem.

@EdJohnston You suggest I should have posted at WP:AE first. I looked at the ways to appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, where it says "The process has three possible stages". I exercised the first, writing Lord Roem on his talkpage, and when we reached an impasse there, I followed the third, posting here. Nowhere does it say that I have to use the second option of posting at WP:AE/WP:AN. The reason I didn't use it is because the sanction was made on WP:AE, and appeals are not usually made to the same place. I am perfectly willing to post at WP:AE again or at WP:ANI, just wanted to assure you that I followed the instructions in good faith. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem Both Nableezy and Nishidani are respectable editors, and with both of them I have in the past reached worthy compromises on contested issues in the IP-conflict area. I am, frankly, at a loss to understand why they don't behave in the same respectable way on Mahmoud Abbas. Perhaps because the subject at hand is too close to them. I am sure we will return to working together amiably in the future. However, how we can establish a "pattern of collaborative editing" in order to reconsider the sanction after a month during the time I am topic banned, is something that is not completely clear to me. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis Confirmed. The main reason I decided not to post again at WP:AE is that at WP:AE only two admins reviewed the case. As a result, in spite of the fact that there was only one admin who thinks I should be temporarily topic banned, that was the decision reached at WP:AE. In addition, my request to admonish the filing editor for what I consider to be his problematic behavior wasn't reviewed at all. I hope that a larger group of admins from ArbCom reviewing this case will either reach another opinion and decision, or at least I will know that a serious consensus exists that I am on the wrong track. In addition I hope that they will take the time to review the behavior of the filing editor as well, per my request and per WP:BOOMERANG. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanda There was no escalation. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanda After reading the proposed explanation by Nishidani, I'd like to add that the edit he posted contains the following sentence: "I'm guessing that Debresser simply doesn't like this since it contradicts a rabbinical tradition". Apart from rejecting this type of accusation as coming close to religious persecution on Wikipedia, I can state as a fact that I am not aware of claimed rabbinic tradition, by which I want to make the point that this was a bad faith accusation. I'd like to request ArbCom to make a clear statement to the fact that editors on Wikipedia should not make assumptions based on professed religious adherence of editors. In addition, if this statement in any way affected LordRoem's opinion, I'd ask immediate annulment of the sanction on that basis alone. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare & @Opabinia regalis I see that both of you find I was incorrect in insisting on adding a less than reliable source. Regarding this issue I have a few things to say: 1. The quality of the sources was a question that was under discussion.[35][36] Another editor agrees with me that the source is fine,[37], especially since the same statement was since sourced to additional sources of high repute,[38] but nevertheless Nableezy and Nishidani insist that their point of view is the only correct one. That brings WP:TE to mind. 2. I provided better sources in the process.[39] 3. If the problem is my addition of a less than ideal source, then a warning to review WP:RS would be in order, not a topic ban. 4. Nableezy and Nishidani also edit warred to add a bad sources, which is still in the article, despite the opposition from two independent editors at the relevant noticeboard discussion. Why were my complaints about this ignored? Why aren't those editors topic banned as well? No society or community can apply rules other than evenhandedly. 5. I have shown a pattern of POV pushing and gaming the system by Nableezy and Nishidani. My actions should be seen on that background. As a result, I ask for leniency if I unintentionally wasn't careful enough regarding the reliability of a source. At the same time I repeat my request to address the problematic editing of those two editors. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis 1. I asked for sanctions against those other editors in the original WP:AE post. That request was ignored. If WP:ARCA is the place to appeal WP:AE decisions, then this is also the place to ask that my request that was previously ignored, now be considered. If that is not so, please let me know asap, because I would probably not have posted here otherwise. Now, that was only #4 of my 5-point reaction. Why then did you say my whole 5-point reply gets into WP:NOTTHEM territory? Why did you ignore all the other facts and arguments? 2. Why do you want me to roll over and play dead? I am not here to acknowledge that I was wrong. I am here precisely because I think I was not wrong, and I want you to review my case. At the same time I am aware that maybe I was wrong. If that will be the conclusion here, then at that moment I will gracefully accept that fact. At this moment, I am trying to argue that I was right. Your comment suggests an a priori assumption of guilt, while the presumption of innocence applies to appeals as well. Please note that I am not saying that I made optimal choices regarding each and every detail, but I do think that my general editing pattern was legitimate, and did not warrant or justify a sanction. 3. By the way, I am making edits in other fields at the moment, as I always have. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies See above: "I asked for sanctions against those other editors in the original WP:AE post. That request was ignored. If WP:ARCA is the place to appeal WP:AE decisions, then this is also the place to ask that my request that was previously ignored, now be considered." Why wouldn't this be the right venue for sanctions against other editors? And what is the right venue, under the circumstances? Debresser (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for justice. It seems, however, that this forum is not interested in justice. In this regard I disagree with Opabinia regalis that my call for justice was "declined by implication". I am rather of the opinion that it was ignored. Several ArbCom members have said explicitly, that they are not willing to review the actions of Nableezy and Nishidani. The logic behind that decision they have refused to explain, and I claim that that decision is incorrect and an injustice.

@SMcCandlish I agree with you that 3 months is a lot more than the usual sanctions at WP:ANI. That is precisely what I meant when I said to LordRoem that this is not a short sanction at all.

I find it interesting to see that most uninvolved non-admins who posted here and at the original WP:AE seem to be of the opinion that I should not be topic banned, and agree with my point of view that there are serious problems with the editing of Nableezy and Nishidani. Sir Joseph and AnotherNewAccount point to some real problems. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Umm, despite Debresser's efforts to paint me as somebody who is a "POV editor" with ever changing arguments to keep negative material about people I dont even particularly like (Abbas), the two sections that he is using to attempt to claim my arguments morph are Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources are about two entirely different sections in the article and completely unrelated material. And one follows the other, but not in the order that he writes above. Yes, I had two different problems about two different edits that Debresser made, edits that Debresser edit-warred to restore in a BLP despite good faith BLP objections, despite specific policy requirements on restoring such material, requirements that Debresser has repeatedly ignored. Ill respond to the rest of that baseless screed if an arbitrator would like me to, but that is a decent example of the type of careless and occasionally reckless editing that Debresser has been engaging in. nableezy - 17:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

It took me 2 days and several hours of time extracting from Debresser, regarding just one edit proposal, based on a high RS source written by the foremost Samaritan authority on Samaritan history, an admission his 3 reverts of that source from the lead were wrong. By simple arithmetic, were I to take the same trouble to parse, analyse through the edit history record, what Debresser wildly claims above, we'd be here till kingdom come. He's a productive editor, with 90,000 contributions, double my own piddling 48,000. Like all of us, he has defects: his is to revert repeatedly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds material closely sourced from books which, on every occasion, leap the WP:RS high bar, being written by authorities in their respective fields, and published under academic imprint. We have the respective talk pages of Mahmoud Abbas (here), and now Israelites (see here and here )to examine the difference in approach. If any close reader can find in Debresser's responses to numerous queries palmary instances of close reading, intimacy with the niceties of wiki policy, wide familiarity with sources and a lucid grasp of the academic pedigrees of authors, their standing in their fields, and endorses his apparent belief that the Bible is a more accurate source for ancient history than scholarship, then by all means, they should call me to order, and ask me to explain myself. I won't defend myself against Debresser's tirade, for obvious reasons. I have no belief he even reads my responses.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record Dovid, when you cite my edit summary above looks like a partisan rabbinical dismissal of Samaritan Israelitic origins, as an ’example of insult and belittling comments’ by myself, you missed the fact that I was alluding to a commonplace in the scholarly literature on Israelites and Samaritans., e.g. here p.176, here p.524; here pp.56-7; here p.420, to cite just 4 of a dozen examples. Our conflicts are of this type. I keep citing the scholarly literature, and you keep reacting to the personal implications you read into my edits, rather than to the academic hinterland whose dragoman I try to be. Operatively, it's not me you keep reverting over numerous pages, but the relevant scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on Amanda's request to Lord Roem. I cannot presume to know the latter's mind (I struggle to know my own, or what remains of it, more times than not). I would only add that the complaint was originally on Debresser's behavior at Mahmoud Abbas. The merits of this complaint that D removed high quality RS at sight, without any visible policy grounds, and couldn't produce them at the talk page, were being evaluated without any clear consensus. Out of the blue, on another page, Debresser suddenly repeated that pattern complained of at another article,Israelites. I.e. while the pattern asserted to exist in his editing Mahmoud Abbas was being analysed, he appeared to confirm it existed by repeating it on another page. I drew admins' attention to this new fact (new evidence supporting the complaint) here. Several hours later, Lord Roem closed the issue with his sanction. My presumption is that the second piece of evidence was read as confirming what, until that point, had only been a hypothesis of uncertain merits: a single-issue complaint became multiple.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:AnotherNewAccount.

I believe that Debresser is right in claiming that Nableezy and Nishidani frequently edit in concert, with Nishidani providing the "brains" and Nableezy the "brawn" in bludgeoning their POV into articles.

That's quite offensive, not because it is utterly false but because I reckon I could whup Nableezy in a fight, but he'd run rings around me on a huge range of complex technical subjects. The gang of four you indicate are still here because they are rule-abiding, and accept fairly strict standards for encyclopedic composition, as do the several 'pro-Israel' stalwarts one could also name. There are over a dozen such editors from both sides who regularly edit the same pages, respect each other because the rules are respected, disagree often, talk policy, ask for evidence, marshall sources, analyse their merits and achieve rational outcomes. The people who end up here do so because they come with one topic in their sights, understanding one POV exclusively, use poor sources, don't discuss or do so erratically, and as often as not ignore the constraints we all accept. The people who get into trouble on A/1 or AE for I/P issues have one characteristic. They are unwilling to do the kind of unsexy intensive legwork, time-consuming research, on which solid article construction is based. They have nothing but a focus on those elements of a long article which can be spun to political advantage.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joe. Again, the same (it's repeated in every thread) insinuation:

this area is "off limits" either due to the headache or bias

The area is not difficult to edit if you are rule compliant, have a genuine interest in history, feel uncomfortable with broadbrush simplistic generalizations, and are willing to work hard. Most editors who stay on do not find it a headache. It demands a lot of work, that's all. The only headache is the historically attested fact that the I/P area tends to attract numerous meatpuppets, sockpuppets, posters who make death threats,anonymous blankers and reverters, ranters flooding one's email with vicious slurs, and gamers. They have no bias of course, though they account for 90% of the AE, A/I complaints. They are certainly not 'pro-Palestinian', a silly designation which is used as if it meant 'anti Israeli'. That you do not find in articles here what you find in partisan tabloids is not necessarily a token of bias. The same rude impression will arise if you read any good academic source or encyclopedia. It might just mean that editors who make contributions that stick, because the RS quality is high, work harder than the meme-replicators out there in examining all the available documentation, and writing it up per WP:Due and WP:NPOV. That said, I have no objection if this suspicion is thought serious enough to warrant a close examination of the editing history and contributions of all to see if they are contributing content or just here to play politics. Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Just to comment that my above support linked to by Debresser should only be taken regarding the underlying content issue - I have no comment on the subsequent alleged behavioural issues (which I assume is what led to the sanction) although personally I think the area is ripe for a full case given the amount of POV-laden editing and BLP violations from multiple editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Nothing prevents the Committee from taking this if they want to. But in fact, User:Debresser has short-circuited the usual appeal route which is laid out at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. He had the option of appealing at WP:AE or WP:AN but has not done so. I'm unclear why the appeal is here. In the absence of any special reason being given, I suggest the Committee decline this request and ask him to use AE or AN for the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lord Roem

I don't have much to add that isn't already linked. If anyone has a specific question for me, please ping me. As the sanctioning admin I do think my short sanction on Debresser is appropriately proportionate. However, I don't see Debresser as helplessly disruptive and will happily lift the topic ban in a month or so if a good pattern of collaborative editing is established. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I was initially only concerned that Debresser appeared to be gaming the 1RR restriction on the page (21:14 13 July and 23:05 14 July). At that point, I thought a warning to be careful about 1RR would be the only thing required. What changed my mind were diffs like this (see edit summary) and the conversation here (where my initial perception was Debresser was stonewalling). This isn't one of the cases where there's something egregious; this is why I suggested during a convo on my talk page to change the sanction to a 0RR restriction instead of a full topic-ban. Debresser expressing willingness to undergo that, but didn't appear to recognize that his approach, thus far, was only disrupting the page.
If arbs think something different is appropriate, I'm not stuck to my position. There's other history in the AE request that gives more context to the situation that I recommend committee members go over. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

I've been away for a few days, and have only just realized that Debresser had ended up topic banned. I have much to say, but I'll be as brief as I possibly can. I won't comment on the quality of the talk page discussion, which was awful - and it wasn't all Debresser's fault. The dispute is a microcosm of the problems in the topic area:

  • Factionalism amongst the editors, and a continued personal animosity between Nableezy and Debresser. They have rather rancorous disputes rather too frequently. It's obvious that Nableezy in particular holds Debresser in utter contempt, judging by how I've seen him belittle Debresser in so many disputes. Every single complaint against Debresser at AE was filed by Nableezy when a content dispute didn't go his way quickly enough.
  • Persistent "numbers" issue. Pro-Palestinian editors are not just in the majority, but are also far more active and persistent, which has inevitably affected the content. In the initial content dispute, the breakdown of editors was broadly as follows:
  • Nableezy - pro-Palestinian editor
  • Zero00000 - pro-Palestinian editor
  • Sepsis II - pro-Palestinian editor, just been topic-banned
  • Nishidani - pro-Palestinian editor
  • Debresser - pro-Israel editor
  • Epson Salts - pro-Israel editor
4-to-2 is a fairly typical ratio of editors for this topic area. Indeed, Nableezy's arguments often resort to "appeals to numbers", particularly when he's belittling Debresser.
  • Continued "tag team" editing. And not just in edit wars. I believe that Debresser is right in claiming that Nableezy and Nishidani frequently edit in concert, with Nishidani providing the "brains" and Nableezy the "brawn" in bludgeoning their POV into articles.
  • Complete lack of neutral editors, those that do attempt to edit or mediate in disputes are typically crushed or worn out by the incessant continued bickering between the two sides.
  • Extreme difficulty in deciding which material is important and relevant to an article, exacerbated by the POVs of the existing editors and the complete lack of neutral editors.
  • Extreme difficulty in identifying and agreeing on reliable sources, exacerbated by the POVs of the existing editors and the complete lack of neutral editors.
  • Related to this is the ability of certain editors to utilize apparently decent sources to present a less-than-neutral view of the topic, either through selective choice of sources, or cherrypicking only favourable material within a source, or most commonly by simply choosing an academic/expert/journalist that has expressed the desired opinion. Both sides have done this to an extent.
  • The general failure of the various noticeboards and the wider community to be of much help. The topic is a bargepole issue, and I suspect the resident noticeboard-dwellers are scared of the topic and want nothing to do with it. (I see Debresser issued a message on the BLP noticeboard which was ignored.)
  • Problems related to the 500/30 sanction. The inital disputed material was added, in good faith, by an IP who was clearly unaware of the sanction. I think this remedy has caused as many problems as it has solved, with several decent new or casual editors having their work reverted, having their heads bitten off, and in a few of cases ending up blocked, whenever they make the mistake of editing an article that hasn't been Extended confirmed yet.

I think there is a good case for the Arbitration Committee to examine the continued warring, content issues and chronic NPOV problems in another case, with the particular aim of increasing the influence of neutral editors. Either that or starting a frank community-wide discussion of the problems on the appropriate community discussion forum. The editing dynamics remain unconducive to neutral and collegial editing, and I think individual editor POVs, factionalism, and groupthink amongst the current editors is to blame. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I will be the first to agree that Debresser can sometimes be strong in his opinions but you also need to admit that for a pro-Israel editor, the "game" already starts off with the other side having a major handicap. Any issue that falls under 1RR or any RFC usually ends up being a numbers game, whether intentional or not. I think the best thing would be to shorten the TBAN and issue a strong warning. We really don't need to lose a usually good editor who can edit neutrally. I have seen Debresser editing with a pro-PA (in a way fixing the article but not touching content, etc.) and I have had my run ins with him as well but on the whole the IP area would be worse off without him.

I will just agree with ANA's point about the area not being one that neutral editors want to touch. During my time at AE I've also been told via email that this area is "off limits" either due to the headache or bias. That is indeed something that should be looked into, independent of this action. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I notice looking at the ARE in question Nableezy had withdrawn the motion [40]. Debresser reversed this withdrawl. Essentially shooting his own self in the foot. I'm seeing a fiery battle when I look at the talkpage which would seem to me to be banworthy. [41] For example "Don't be stupid". I could pull out other examples but my point is this all is a FIGHT. There was need for admin intervention. Perhaps there might be a question if Nableezy should also be topic banned but I see no reason why this ban should be questioned. It seems that Lord Roem was trying to take the least severe action reasonable. An indefinite topic ban, and correct me if I am wrong, would require a 6 month waiting period after any failed appeal. Lord Roem, and don't let me put words in your mouth, seems to have concluded that Debresser would possibly amend their behavior. Judging from Lord Roem comments they are willing to review the situation as early as 1 month if Debresser shows improvement. Debresser this seems like a much needed cooling off period.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Three months is not a "short sanction". It is shorter than the one year authorized by WP:AC/DS, but it's long by WP:ANI standards. DS is an unusual remedy for in extremis cases in controversial parts of the project, and usually applied to recalcitrant/intransigent disruptive editors about whom we all have WP:NOTHERE or WP:COMPETENCE concerns, not usually long-term productive editors. I would think that a one-day block, or a one-week Tban would have been sufficient. The problem with three-month Tbans is that, because they are based on perceived behavior/attitude not on content and sourcing, they often have the effect of "handing the keys to the kingdom" to the opposition without regard to what the fallout will be on the content. This is eminently gameable. All it takes is for a PoV pusher or tagteam thereof to play a long game, patiently goading a very well-meaning but less patient editor into being just frustrated and intemperate enough to attract attention from an admin who sees DS as the right tool. I don't imply anything about anyone in particular in this exact case (I have not examined the rationales of the opposing parties in any detail, nor do I detect an "I have a hammer, an every problem is a nail" attitude on the part of the admin in question).

I'm just speaking from years of observational, and occasionally direct, experience. Three-month restrictions have a strong tendency to act as a de facto green light to the other side of a content dispute to WP:WIN (and such DS tend to be engineered to serve this purpose), an administrative ruling leveraged sometimes for years after the fact as a weapon/threat to let a faction have their way or else, to the detriment of the content and our readers. The content disputes in this particular case can surely be ironed out with some RfCs. I'm skeptical that continuing the restrictions against Debresser will serve any preventative purpose, only a punitive one. The main rationale that I see here, the "well, Debresser knew those sources were weak but used them anyway" excuse, speaks directly to this being a punishment for an error, not an ongoing necessity to prevent firmly predictable continued disruption; there's no evidence I can see that Debresser would resume right where he left off.

So, I call WP:TIGER shenanigans on this three-monther.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I'll only deal with the AE request here:

  • The dispute started as a content dispute where Debresser was accused of violating consensus. In the middle, Nablezzy withdrew the request since the underlying dispute was kind of solved, but Debresser reopened it, asking for a WP:BOOMERANG. But they "lost". It's hard for me to feel sympathy here.
  • Lord Roem basically implemented the sanction by themselves, which is fine (sanctions at WP:AE do not need consensus). It is generally good practice to allow others to others to weigh in, but the WP:AE request had been open a fortnight, with only one other admin commenting, briefly. It's no secret that nobody wants to touch this area with a ten-foot pole.
  • It is generally the thinking at at WP:AE that very short topic bans aren't effective. Anything less than one month is useless, three months is common as well. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Lord Roem: By looking at the result section of the AE request, I see that your view seems to have progressively changed from no sanction to sanction over time. Could you briefly outline your thoughts/reasoning on the escalation over time to where the behavior became disruptive enough for further sanction? I'm not looking for anything detailed, just some diffs or sections that show things were continuing to escalate requiring enforcement.
  • @The Wordsmith: Your last comment on this Enforcement was 5 days before it's closure. Could I request your two cents on the new information and result?
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo Opabinia's point above, that Debresser is welcome to come to ARCA without first going to WP:AE or WP:AN. I am not convinced that the ~25 hour gap between edits was an attempt to game 1RR. However, the sanction placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure seems appropriate due to the re-adding of poor-quality sources (even after Debresser admitted they were of poor quality), as well as attempts to control the content of the article based on claims that his own edits reflected consensus despite lack of discussion. I think Lord Roem was right to place a fairly short sanction (three months, when DS authorizes indefinite topic bans of up to one year) given that these are not the most egregious violations we've seen, but I do think the short sanction is warranted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotten behind on my ARCA reading, but I've caught up with this one now and I agree with GW. There was certainly edit-warring, even if not "gaming", and it was poorly sourced material in a contentious BLP. This is a pretty short sanction, and Lord Roem even mentioned willingness to lift it early if warranted, and IMO this is well within the norms of admin discretion in DS. Use the time to relax with some quieter articles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Debresser, I read your recent addendum, and I fear we're getting into WP:NOTTHEM territory. This also isn't the right venue to ask for new sanctions against other editors under DS. People who gracefully acknowledge they may have been wrong and invest some time in other things are more likely to get their sanctions lifted early, or to cause hesitation to impose new sanctions later. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two points: 1) As far as I can see, your request to have others sanctioned wasn't so much "ignored" as "declined by implication". 2) As for my advice, well, I've read this request, and the AE request, and the talk page threads, and I think you were sufficiently in the wrong that a sanction was justifiable. It seems that quite a few experienced admins and arbs are coming to that conclusion, which is useful feedback. But if you prefer, read it as pragmatism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like my colleague above I see a lot of NOTTHEMing here. What I don't see is an egregious administrative failure or an excessively harsh topic ban. Quite the opposite: Lord Roem seems to lenient and willing to reconsider. Nor is this the place to ask for other editors to be punished or warned. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon review, I find Lord Roem's actions reasonable; so, appeal declined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When deciding on appeals of discretionary sanctions, I look at whether the enforcing admin's actions are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and DS procedure. In this case DS procedure was followed so there are no issues there. Lord Roem seems to have been very reasonable (3 months is a short topic ban by AE standards) and is willing to discuss options to move forward. For those reasons I decline the appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Infoboxes

Initiated by John Cline at 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Editorial process
  2. Consensus
  3. Use of infoboxes
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request



Information about amendment request
  • Without modification, clause one currently reads:

    Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary ...

    The wording wrongfully implies that discussion is a required component of consensus building. Policy does not support such a notion where, at Wikipedia:Consensus, normal editing is said io be the "usual" manner of consensus building across Wikipedia. It also says: "when editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus [my emphasis]." I request the wording of this clause be changed, so as not to circumvent policy, but to compliment it instead. Perhaps, for example:

    Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is usually done through normal editing and, at times, through the additional use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary ...

  • Without modification, clause two currently reads:

    Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. ...

    Implications are again that consensus can not be achieved except through discussion. Consider the following example, where consensus through editing is also shown:

    Wikipedia works by building consensus through normal editing and, at times, through the additional use of polite discussion. ...

Statement by John Cline

I recently participated in an RFC that relates to this case. It held that consensus can not exist for a matter unless there had been a discussion on the matter itself. Although consensus through editing was clearly in place, upheld by longstanding assent, those dependent on the premise cited the Arbcom rulings from this case as grounds to stand fast; and do continue.

Failing to mention consensus through editing, in the clauses I've shown, is an oversight of consequence! It has given some editors a false empowerment of misinformation, and undermined its own charge of resolving the infobox dispute by instead, strengthening disagreement within already fractured ranks.

The modifications requested here are easy to do and self evidently more policy compliant. I do not see where reason could lie for wanting to exclude mention of our foremost manner of consensus building and hope the requested measures to amend can be realized by minimally intrusive means. Therefore, I have not named anyone "party" as nothing about it involves user conduct. I will, however, notify each of the editors involved in the RFC I mentioned, in case they are interested enough to opine. My thanks to the Committee for considering this request.--John Cline (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum
To correct the inclusion of an unintentional synthesis, the modification requested for clause three has been changed from saying "on the article's talk page" to instead say, "on associated talk pages". With good reason, WP:CONACHIEVE is deliberate in its choice of words and this request endeavors to remain faithful with policy regarding suggested modifications.--John Cline (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point of Order
Please be considerate of the process and apportion your voice in succinct terms that focus on this Arbcom request. Intentionally withhold inclusions of superfluous excess and extraneous clutter. Currently, the overwhelming majority of expended effort has been spent on the latter while the request itself has seen barely a mention. Please be proactive in reversing this trend and consider redacting any out of scope commentary your statements may contain. Above all else, do comment on the specific elements of this request which are starving for your regards.--John Cline (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttals
@Littleolive oil: - I am fairly certain that I have not misunderstood policy, or spoken of it beyond the context of its intent. I did not commingle policy on consensus with policy on dispute resolution; just because discussion overlaps the two. The links I've provided are policy links on consensus building measures; I'll display them in long form for you here.
  1. Can consensus exist through editing alone, without discussion? Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing says it can; "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."
  2. Is discussion, in the context of this proposal, a dispute resolution measure or a continuation of consensus building? Wikipedia:Consensus#Through discussion says: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion." Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving consensus says: "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."
  3. Have I ever said, in this request, or anywhere else, that a reverse application of "consensus through editing" could achieve consensus for not doing a thing simply because it had not sooner been done? No I have not! I have said consensus can exist without discussion, never that consensus can exist without editing.--John Cline (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Collect - your entire statement is a shining example of collegial discourse; perhaps the finest hour discussion has seen. Your assessment of this request was thoughtful and thorough; your conclusions: prudent, kind, and correct.
In considering your statement, I realized I had forgotten to perform some important "before measures". For example: I hadn't considered the scope of the problem perceived. If I had, I might not have filed this request.
Aesthetics aside, you have shown this: a remedy with nothing to gain. I acquiesce to the reason in all you have said, substance and sentiment alike. And, to the extent possible, set aside the assertions I formerly made; enjoining your call for an expeditious close of this request.--John Cline (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: – I am 100% confident in your good faith, and offer this rebuttal for clarification only. In a request where I hold no hope of attaining consensus, I feel these clarifications are sufficiently important enough; so as to follow:
You concluded that this request appeared to be about whether hidden text can be used to advise editors about infobox use on an article when the matter has never been discussed for that specific article does not entirely reflect what I had hoped to convey when authoring it. In light of the innuendo thrown freely about, I do understand how you could see it this way.
I have held my contempt for those of bad faith (the greatest minority of all editors on Wikipedia) to honor the greatest majority of editors, by far; whom I adore (those of selfless good will) by keeping the counsel on this page's edit notice, where it says: "any effort you make to reduce tensions is appreciated." It was not the simplest of things I have ever done.
Let me now, however, categorically refute every semblance of bad faith levied against my person, or any extension thereof (as in motives and intent); as I lament how effective the tactic itself has proven to be.
The reason I worded this request as: "consensus can not exist for a matter unless there had been a discussion on the matter itself." was not to hide my intent, but because two distinctly separate matters had risen to both become mooted; because: 1. no discussion could be shown, and 2. Arbcom said discussion is "the path to consensus".
That rationale could derail any topic that might benefit by measuring consensus. A foremost example is the establishment of a status quo; assumed as an article's default condition in cases where a discussion results in "no consensus" to change it as such. Rather than a best result through best editing practice, a safer course of denying a status quo was twice chosen, and I expect its being chosen again, and again, as long as these clauses remain; giving such arguments license and voice in Arbcom's name.
Please revisit the RFC that prompted this request, and notice its time-stamp when published, and the rather simple question asked:

Should the hidden html comment, <!-- please do not add an infobox: see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes]]--> be removed from this article?

Take notice that ample editing guidance is reproduced to follow which clearly shows the hidden comment to be in rather full noncompliance; indisputably so, in my opinion.
I considered this comment's inappropriateness in concert with several editing guidelines I remember having read which pertain to similar forms of content, said to be, "in need of removal"; even copyvios. I recall there always being a caveat with a similar message, in effect, saying: if the offending content can be removed by correcting the infractions opposed to full and judicious removal, that option should a least be considered.
From this understanding, I made my first edit to the RFC; 44 minutes after it was published, completely of good faith, hoping to help, believing I possibly could, and determining it worth a try. That edit read: "I think a third option, rewording the comment, should be available." In my opinion, as it was written, the RFC was heavenly weighted in favor of the OP's desirous outcome by allowing only one method for allowing said removal.
Ironically, it brought the discussion (which these clauses wrongly say must happen first) properly, by having first levied its disagreement; of which discussion, of course, should follow. This keeps the BRD cycle intact instead of following some kind of DBR cycle the clauses I'd hoped to amend endeavor to recommend (in rather strong fashion, I note) The RFC did not, however, allow for keeping the hidden comment, if, in fact, the correct preference was for keeping the hidden comment and removing the wrongful message by fixing it instead.
Talk about "engineering a situation". The very common practice of "removal by fixing" simply was not an option this RFC was willing to allow, its omission was not a simple oversight; but posturing instead, deliberate and of questionable faith; able to acomplish one thing alone, a dismantling of the status quo.
Gage this fact by the escalating levels of visceral that came in response to my question. Notice the flood of filibustering fodder that fell, almost immediately, in place, along with its distracting effect; to obfuscate the systematic molestation of years of hard work and "consensus building through editing", that this article had clearly achieved. The article more deservedly should have been held up for emulation; though a modicum of respected would have gone far and endeared many.
I am finding it more and more difficult to see any good faith in this RFC's framing at all, especially after enduring statements of outright fabrication cast against me. And platitudes of feigned inquisitiveness by repeating the same question, over and again, page after page; irrespective of its having been answered as many times before.
You close your regards by saying: (I'm not enthusiastic about the idea that the fact of a status quo can be explicitly cited as "consensus" without any actual discussion in support, even in something as minor as a hidden text comment.) In contrast, I like a bible passage that paraphrases like this: if you can't be faithful in matters small, you certainly will not be faithful in matters large; aside the fact that this is not at all, a small matter!
I sincerely thank you and anyone else who labored to read this tl:dr reply; I will, however, wager that I enjoyed writing it much less!
By the way, I truly believe, as I did say, Collect resolved all elements of this request 13 days ago. Anyone who missed reading his statement should read it as soon as they are able, in my opinion at least.

Given with my esteem.--John Cline (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sfarney

  • @GRuban: You wrote: I don't like the assumption that any kind of consensus can be established by inaction and silence. Please clarify. Are you saying that no kinds of consensus can be established by silence? Or that some kinds of consensus cannot be established by silence? If the latter, I agree. If the former, permit me to gesture to the process on the majority of scientific and technical articles, monitored by perhaps scores of people who quickly scan daily changes and nod silently (or mentally) to each change, silently consenting. To require explicit consent would be burdensome and counterproductive. If the tools do not currently provide, I suggest a simple tool would scan the Encyclopedia and provide a list of pages that are monitored by less than a quorum of editors -- maybe 5 or some magic number. Operation Stepchild.
    Articles with a full quorum of monitors are presumed to have a chorus of implicit consent to changes. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

It is acknowledged that in certain small walled-gardens in Wikipedia, infoboxes are contentious, even though they are accepted as an expected element in most areas. WP:ARBINFOBOX arose because of the intractable disputes that occurred in those areas. The current guidance at WP:INFOBOXUSE and the consequent ArbCom findings reflect that contention over infoboxes. While it is perfectly reasonable to see consensus established by normal editing in the absence of prior consensus, it is also reasonable to expect that discussion should take place in order to change any existing consensus that has been explicitly established. In other words, you need a fresh debate to overturn the outcome of a previous debate. This is the same sort of expectation as at the hatnote you see at MOS pages: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

Nevertheless, this request is not about the means of establishing consensus through editing; it is an attempt to justify a claim of consensus through not editing, and the addition of hidden comments to articles to enforce that fallacious consensus.

We can all see value in having a hidden comment that says something like "Before adding an infobox, please consider the discussions at [LINK TO PRIOR DEBATE]". It gives a new editor notice that an existing consensus is in place on the article and directs them to the issues already discussed. Such a notice also complies with the guidance at Help:Hidden text #Inappropriate uses for hidden text.

However, this request goes much further than that. It has been the practice by the infobox-haters to mark their articles with a hidden comment along the lines of "please do not add an infobox: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes", breaching Help:Hidden text and WP:CONLOCAL. John Cline wants to engineer a situation where an editor can use a hidden comment to forbid others from adding an infobox, despite there being no previous discusion whatsoever. The infobox-haters want the ability to revert any addition of an infobox without giving reason other than the spurious claim that because the article doesn't have an infobox, there must be an implicit consensus that it shouldn't have one. That would be as nonsensical as saying "The article doesn't have an image, or it doesn't have a navbox, therefore there is an existing consensus against including those elements."

ArbCom should be supporting the right of uninvolved editors to make edits that do not breach policy; they should condemn the practice of a small group of editors of forbidding others to make particular edits without any prior debate; and they should make it clear to that small group that a complete absence of debate really is a complete absence of consensus. --RexxS (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: It is ownership, not stewardship. The difference is explained at Wikipedia:Ownership of content #Ownership and stewardship: "a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an "ownership" problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit." When an editor removed the hidden comment ("per WP:HIDDEN"), he should not be reverted with a pointer to WP:HIDDEN: "Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake" implying that adding an infobox is a common mistake. That is discourteous and a clear example of an ownership mentality if the editor in question actually believes that. The relevant section of WP:HIDDEN guides against "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit." There is no existing policy against adding an infobox to an article - most emphatically when there has been no prior debate about the issue, as in this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

Without focusing on infoboxes specifically, I don't like the assumption that any kind of consensus can be established by inaction and silence. There are two possibilities: either, yes, most people editing the article are in agreement that we shouldn't have an X, or, most people editing the article haven't really thought about it, and might be perfectly fine with having an X. We can't know without discussing. --GRuban (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfarney: No, I'm afraid silence is just that, we can't assume everyone who has an article on their watchlist agrees with every edit. It's more than likely they just didn't look. That is all that is needed to make an edit, that no one objects, but it is not enough to assume that anyone actually noticed. --GRuban (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing

  • It would doubtless be instructive for ArbCom members to read the RFC discussion that prompted this proposal before considering these technically accurate, but possibly loaded, proposals. This might unfortunately get interpreted as "This hidden HTML comment has been on the page for years, so there is currently consensus for it".
  • Back in the ArbCom case, I encouraged the then-members to explicitly and directly address the question of hidden HTML comments in articles that directed editors of an article to respect the preferences of a small group of editors. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re Infoboxes)

I was not involved in this situation, indeed I was unaware of it until seeing this request to arbcom, but having reviewed the RfC I have to endorse what RexxS says. Some members of the classical music project believes that infoboxes are an incredibly Bad Thing and should be kept as far away from "their" articles as possible, and some will argue tooth and nail to keep "their" articles without them. This WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour was permitted in the first Infoboxes case, over the objections of everyone who could foresee the problems it would bring, and no committee since has had the courage to admit that it was the wrong decision. This affair regarding hidden comments is an attempt to expand the reach of the OWNERSHIP by saying "you must get the permission of the Classical Music project to add an infobox here.", regardless of the wishes of the editors at the article or of any other relevant Wikiprojects. I recall at least one article where the author supported the addition of an infobox by someone else, and had to persuade the Classical Music project editors that their project was not the primary one for this article before consensus was even considered relevant. Alas I'm unable to find the article in question at the moment, but will provide a link when I do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfarney: There is a page, special:unwatchedpages, that lists pages with no and very few people watching it, although only administrators can see this (for hopefully obvious security reasons). Also, there is a link on the history page for an article that lists the number of people watching that page. For example Gustav Holst appears on 134 watchlists and 30 of the people who have it on their watchlist visited recent edits. Certainly this first number is not reported precisely to non-adminstrators below a certain threshold (I forget what the value is), again as a defence against spamming and malicious editing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse user:SMcCandlish's suggestion of discretionary sanctions for the topic of infoboxes, explicitly including discussions about them generally and discussions about their inclusion or otherwise on a specific article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I strongly support something like this, but explicitly focused on visible content edits (i.e., hidden HTML comments do not count, but a long-standing presence of an infobox does, and so does long-standing removal of one that was there before, but simple absence of one is meaningless – Wikipedians add content and features, not studiously avoid adding anything that was not already present, or WP would have no content at all). I also further request that discretionary sanctions be enabled for infobox-related discussions (per normal Template:Ds/alert, etc., process). WP:ARBINFOBOX has been utterly ineffective at curtailing "infobox warrior" behavior, and the civility levels have again fallen through the floor. The very locus of the original case, the classical music wikiproject, remains the topical source of most ibox-related disputation, and it proceeds as if ARBINFOBOX never happened. I was about to lodge a pair of WP:AE enforcement requests (not regarding any parties to the original ARBINFOBOX case), diffing a consistent pattern of aspersion-casting, personal attacks, and tendentious battlegrounding in a tagteam manner, but find that I apparently cannot, because DS doesn't apply to ARBINFOBOX yet, so there is seemingly no action for AE to take or basis for any action. I'm not sure there's any recourse at all other than the usual WP:ANI drama, which rarely seems to result in action. (I'm skeptical that it would because the community itself is divided on infoboxes – though in about an 80:20 ratio in favor, at this point – so it's apt to devolve to one "party platform" against another instead of looking at user behavior). This really has to stop; it's been going on for years, and is marked by WP:GREATWRONGS-style campaigning by a handful of editors who oppose infoboxes with a passion, but cannot actually defend their position logically or with policy, only ad hominem verbal abuse and WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior. Maybe they're ultimately right that WP should not have infoboxes, but the ends do not justify the means. (And there are opponents of infoboxes who do not exhibit these problems at all; it's an individual editor behavior issue, not a "wiki-political faction" matter.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SchroCat: It may well be that proponents of infoboxes sometimes present fallacious arguments and engage in civility lapses; that doesn't give their opposition license to double-up on it to outdo them in a contest of who can the be most disruptive. I observe a large number of ibox-related discussions, and participate directly in quite a few of them. Over the last year or so, I note only a single pair of editors, almost always appearing together to post back-to-back (see if you can guess whom I mean) who are consistently relying on a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT plus unfiltered, personalized hostility. They happen to be against infoboxes (at least in some topical areas; I don't monitor their edits in particular, across different topics), while in the original case it may have been the other way around. Two wrongs don't make a right, and none of this would be happening (for very long) if DS had been authorized the first time around. It's a consistent behavioral problem that will be addressed one way or another, and it doesn't matter what side of the great wrong/right they're on. But perhaps I'm blind, and SchroCat is right in suggesting that the pro-infobox crowd are equally uncivil; if so, that's double the reason to impose WP:AC/DS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf's DS scope suggestions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur completely with RexxS's policy analysis of OWN, STEWARDSHIP, and HIDDEN, and would further cite WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:STONEWALL, WP:PROJPAGE, and WP:MERCILESS, as well as the aforementioned FAITACCOMPLI. No wikiproject or other gaggle of editors is ever in a position to assert or imply exclusive scope over an article or other content, and then try to stake claims that policy doesn't actually entitle them to, e.g. with "thou shalt not"-style HTML comments that attempt to limit others' editorial rights [entitlements, privileges, however you like to conceptualize what we do]. There's a huge difference between using an HTML comment to refer to policies or to previous consensus discussions, versus to issue commandments with no basis but the preference of some project or of one or a few editors who believe themselves "WP:VESTED" at a particular article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Montanabw's comments: A strong admonishment to not engage in WP:JERK behavior (if I may summarize), and application of DS, are essentially the same thing, except that the latter can be enforced without coming back to ArbCom again. It should be handleable by admins without invoking further drama/process. Agree that an RfC should not be mandatory in every case; we do not need some special "legislation" here, and standard WP operating procedure is fine, though I don't object to Montanabw's RfC-specific wording suggestion. Gist: RfCs are used when regular discussion fails to resolve a matter. Also agree that the discussions all tend to be essentially the same, but that's par for the course on a lot of editing matters (see WP:RM, every single day for a dozen different sorts of examples of this phenomenon). When people get tired enough of it – when the community is willing to decide whether or not infoboxes should become a standard feature by default or usually be avoided – then there'll be a big site-wide Village Pump RfC on it, or consensus will just quietly shift, but we don't seem to be there yet. When we are, I would expect some guidance to evolve similar to WP:NAVBOX, with criteria for when to include an i-box and when not, and what should [not] be in it, etc. The Sinatra compromise could be part of such a model, used as an example. What's not acceptable is unilaterally nuking the long-standing Cary Grant infobox on the bogus excuse that was offered for doing so, then editwarring to retain the deletion after multiple editors have objected to the removal (still unresolved last I looked). This "my way or the highway" filibustering behavior needs to put to bed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat's willful misinterpretation of Opabina regalis's statement as license to embark on an anti-infobox crusade, which appears to be actually imminent (see below) is strong evidence that AC/DS should be applied to infobox-related editing and discussion, or we'll just be right back at RFARB with "ARBINFOBOX2" in a week or so. The error is in failing to recognize that the long-standing presence of content that people have worked on is in fact strong evidence of consensus for its presence. Otherwise, every word in every article that was not put there by a laborious consensus discussion process would be subject to immediate, willy-nilly deletion, with the burden of proof entirely on the shoulders of content-adding editors. This flies directly in the face of WP:EDITING policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchroCat

  • I speak as an editor who is not a member of the classical music project (or any project, given that);
  • There is way too much misleading hyperbole in many of the comments going on ("small walled-gardens"? "infobox-haters"? The obvious accusations of OWNERSHIP - all utter balls: try WP:STEWARDSHIP from those willing to update articles and who safeguard it from vandalism and sub-standard edits, unlike the passing ships of the IB warriors)
  • Much of the misleading hyperbole posted above, may or may not have a grain of true, but if it is, it can be equally applied to both 'sides'. (e.g. "it's been going on for years, and is marked by WP:GREATWRONGS-style campaigning by a handful of editors who hate infoboxes with a passion, but cannot actually defend their position logically or with policy, only ad hominem verbal abuse and WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior." Spin that round and you'd have exactly the same level of validity in the accusation.)
  • Whereas those who have a more open mind to the inclusion or exclusion of an IB tend not to spend their time sytematically removing IBs, the same cannot be said of those with a less flexible approach do go round adding them in great numbers. This is particularly true of the the hard line of tracking and targetting the articles where the use of the IB has been previously considered.
  • There are 5 million plus articles .en, most of which are in desparate need of work: I am not sure why the same group of people are frequently attending the same articles to force the issue of formatting on the top right-hand corner of articles.

- SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no wish to discuss anything further here with the comments from non-Arbs, particularly given the snide and ill-judged comments of one or two, who bring the luggage of previous and unconnected disputes with them. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis, I am glad you have said that. "I'm not enthusiastic about the idea that the fact of a status quo can be explicitly cited as "consensus" without any actual discussion in support" can equally be applied to a redundant IB that has stood for some time. If there was no "actual discussion" to add a box that is unnecessary, that goes counter to many claims I have seen in many IB discussions and we can happily ignore claims to the contrary.
In terms of any hidden wording, this can simply be tweaked to say "There is no consensus to include an IB on this article..." which is a true reflection of the situation, given what you say. – SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"license to embark on an anti-infobox crusade, which appears to be actually imminent". Could you please keep to what is truthful? There isn't, and never has been, any movement to remove IBs in a systematic way. The converse is not true, however. This is the second time in a few hours you have made a statement about me that has not reflected reality. My GF is being stretched on this, so perhaps you could be a little more careful when making comments. – SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

This situation arises in the context of the law of unintended consequences. Here, the issue was removal of a hidden text comment that had reflected a prior position of a group within the Classical music wikiproject that ultimately resulted in WP:ARBINFOBOX. The comment should have been removed years ago when the decision was handed down, as, to oversimplify, the ArbCom decision clearly held that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the classical music projects was, essentially, irrelevant, and that every single article had to make an infobox decision on a case by case basis. So, as RexxS said, while a hidden comment that notes a prior consensus and links to the discussion may be well-advised so as to not waylay an innocent drive-by editor who makes an infobox addition (or removal), to have a general statement of a project "consensus" is clearly contrary to the ArbCom decision.

But, the larger issue is now, in every case where the infobox question is raised, we essentially are having the same argument, over and over again. Even though we are asked to discuss the merits for individual articles on individual merits, the bottom line is that the issues really are almost the same for every article within any given genre, and at the end of the day, it is the same core group of people (I am among that group) with the same basic ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments (each well-reasoned with links), and I haven't seen a new argument anywhere on either side in over two years. It is most unlikely that anyone is going to change their mind.

The problem is that both sides are getting fatigued, and as a result, some people have let their manners slip and are becoming uncivil and at times engaging in personal attacks. While I personally am of the opinion that the incivility problem lies more on one side than the other, I also think that finger-pointing isn't going to help matters here. I only raise it to avoid the false equivalency of the "you are all at fault so I'm just going to give everyone detention and not bother to sort things out" approach that usually settles nothing. Here, as at each article, we need to focus on the issue and not the personalities.

The vast majority of infobox disputes occur in the classical music articles, with a few at an occasional literary article or the occasional movie star biography (notably the Frank Sinatra and Catherine Zeta-Jones FACs). Most often, the dispute begins by someone who posts at talk that they want to add an infobox, or a drive-by editor simply is bold and adds one. Less often, the dispute arises over removal of an infobox, often one that has been there for many years (as in the two actor articles noted here).

Although SMcCandlish suggests discretionary sanctions, I think this can be handled more gently: Enforce existing policy, particularly WP:NPA. The decision can be amended to strongly admonish all users to avoid any personalized comments, to have no personal attacks, and notably to avoid casting aspersions on any other editor. Accusations of any sort of nefarious motives or actions are likewise not helpful; most of us simply have strongly and sincerely held positions on the issue.

The approach of using RfC to conduct these debates might be helpful to bring in non-involved parties, but it would be unwieldy to mandate it in all infobox disputes, as some are not very contentious. Perhaps the decision could be amended along these lines:

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but if we can all just keep it professional, it would go a long way. Each side will win a few and lose a few; occasionally (as at Sinatra) a compromise will be achieved. Maybe someday we will figure out a solution that's a win-win for everyone. And if it works, we can all hire out to go negotiate peace in the Middle East. Montanabw(talk) 17:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

I'd suggest that Consensus as described by John Cline here is taken out of context and perhaps misunderstood. The context for "Consensus" is for, if and when normal editing fails, and is further followed by a description of dispute resolution. The reverse is not true, that is, normal editing is a consensus situation and I don't see anything in our policies and guidelines that suggests that it is. We cannot write policy here and I believe the changes suggested would allow editors to argue that any past edit has a consensus, certainly not true in any kind of editing situation.

Do we need some kind of community wide agreement on info boxes that will remedy the same old back and forth I have been watching and involved with in a peripheral way. Yes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Gerda

I said a lot in the RfC already and try to be brief and simple. I think to talk about hidden messages, and if something undiscussed can be a consensus, is curing symptoms. The basic disease is that - for reasons I didn't find in four years - the addition of an infobox is not regarded as the attempt to cater also to certain users (who are sometimes called idiots), but as an attack. (Look at the discussion just on the Holst page to learn more eloquent descriptions such as "the Info-box Panzers".) Many comments on the Holst talk and elsewhere read as if an infobox would take away from the article, while I think it just adds structured information, for those readers who may want it. Compare Drei Chöre, Op. 6. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: both you and SchroCat link piped to a list which I began during the infoboxes arbcase: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox. It lists articles where infoboxes where reverted, because that is what the case was about (or rather: should have been about). Once started, I kept updating it when I noticed new cases. - A list of "infoboxes added" (but not article names, too many) is a bit higher on the same page: follow the link to an infobox template and click on "What links here", for example for opera. - You say that not every infobox is welcome, yes, sure, then it is amicably discussed and reverted, and I will try to avoid a repeat. It could be so easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Smerus said - and the above link said already: I am a member of QAI. I am also a member of projects Classical music and Opera, where we had a good conversation recently. Smerus will also be able to confirm that I didn't come up with infoboxes for his opera articles, - if I know the preferences of an author I respect them. - Smerus and I have been seen as antagonists in the Infoboxes case, - plain wrong. We share enthusiasm for classical music and collaborate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
back to the request: Voceditenore (who is on vacation this month, so can't speak herself)) said in the discussion on the talk of Opera: "... there is no need for anyone to ask permission to add infoboxes anywhere on Wikipedia ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further down, some members of QAI were mentioned. One member created todays featured article which was then improved to FA status by SchroCat and Tim riley. Another member was named Wikipedian of the Year. Membership has nothing to do with this clarification request ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As SchroCat wrote: the hidden massage could be changed to "There is no consensus to include an IB on this article..." which he called a true reflection of the situation". I agree, but then think we could just drop the message, and leave the process to normal editing, in good faith and without edit war. Adding an infobox to an article that had none is a bold edit, which can be accepted or reverted with the question to discuss. Removing an infobox from an article that had one for a long time is just the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

A few notes:

First is that the Arbitration Committee specifically can neither make nor alter Wikipedia policies. To that end, the statements which appear to delimit WP:CONSENSUS made by the committee should not have been stated as they were, and, in fact, do not make changes to WP:CONSENSUS.

Second is that "solutions in search of a problem" including all "Gordian Knot solutions" are intrinsically a bad idea, and the committee should avoid using them at all, and likely should abrogate all such prior decisions sua sponte.

Third is that once again the issue of whether precedent has any value for the Arbitration Committee is again raised. The committee ought well either adopt some sort of "stare decisis" system, or state that prior decisions have no effect on current decisions. The current "decision by Limbo" system fails.

I note also that, contrary to the "official rules", a great deal of the prior discussion here deals with making claims about motives and behaviour of individual editors, which, as far as I can tell, will help no discussions about "Infoboxen" at all. (vide asides about "infobox haters" etc.) In sad point of fact, no case has been presented here for re-opening the original decision as such.

To that end, the committee should simply state that the principles adopted in any case which refer to any policy do not replace any stated policy, and do not in any way amend any such policy. Collect (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by We hope

I think the issue needs to be reconsidered as the previous case really didn't provide any permanent solutions. The restrictions imposed previously are no longer in effect, but the problem continues. A discussion about an infobox for Gustav Holst spilled over to my talk page recently, where I stated my beliefs.

I don't see a group of editors going through Wikipedia removing infoboxes because they don't like them or starting discussions at talk pages of articles they don't normally edit for removal of the article infobox. However, I have seen people adding them without a thought for prior consensus, old discussions about it being revived and some editors of articles need to discuss the issue over and over again. I also don't see those who don't care for infoboxes keeping an organized list of articles where infoboxes have been added, but there is one for those which have been removed.

Everyone isn't pleased to see the infobox; the continuance of discussion on top of discussion at certain articles is disruptive because no one can do much that's productive; time is being taken up by the need to discuss the subject of whether article X should or should not have an infobox. As long as infoboxes are optional, those who elect not to include them in articles should not be repeatedly involved in defending their choice. We hope (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support statement & suggestion by User:Laser_brain. The running discussion about the late, lamented infobox at Josephine Butler is a good example of how protracted these discussions can be. The first post in the "Infobox" section was 18 May when it was removed. The last posts about it were yesterday, 9 August. The article has been extensively improved and is now at Peer Review; it's likely to go to FAC thereafter. If Josephine Butler becomes a FA, given the history of these discussions, it will not be the end of them. We hope (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And once more, the infobox issue has followed me to my talk page. We hope (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim riley

The comment by We hope, above, seems to me very much to the point. The present brouhaha arises because a group of editors, mostly known for insisting on info-boxes in all articles, have descended en masse on featured (and other) articles in which few of them, if any, have shown any previous interest. They demand a box. Full stop. Those, like me, who think boxes are excellent for some articles but not all, cannot I believe be similarly charged with invading established articles to which we do not contribute, demanding the removal of i-bs. My view is that where there is a discernible status quo and general practice – for or against an i-b – it should not be overturned without consensus. Tim riley talk 16:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smerus

This amendment request is headed 'infoboxes'. But the proposals of John Cline (save for the third) do not mention infoboxes. All three proposals simply seek to demote the priority of polite discussion in the editing process. I infer that John Cline feels that polite discussion is somehow out of place or of secondary importance when infoboxes are an issue. I cannot concur. Polite discussion should be at the heart of all editing issues where there is principled disagreement. --Smerus (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as regards transparency: I am a member of WP:Classical Music and WP:Opera. Messrs. Arendt, McCandlish and Montanabw are members of WP:QAI. I can't speak for other editors here.--Smerus (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Laser brain

@Opabinia regalis: Every time someone decides to turn an article into a proxy battleground for the infobox war, the real losers are content contributors. The hapless editors of the page have their watchlist constantly lit up, and good editors have to stop building content to go argue about something. From my perspective, if Wikipedia loses out on any well-written content because of this dispute (and people on both sides produce excellent content), then we have an opportunity to do something to prevent disruption. The community has already proven unable to handle this situation, which is why infoboxes have been before ArbCom. I would encourage an amendment allowing discretionary sanctions for this conflict area. That way if someone behaves badly in this domain, other editors can file a report at AE and it can be dealt with. --Laser brain (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite disappointed that ArbCom has decided to fiddle while this burns. There are currently three active AN/I threads regarding infoboxes and little battles blowing up all over article space. We need DS authorized in this area. --Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

We hope and Laser Brain have said exactly my stance on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moxy

I dont see how anyone would think its a good idea to leave a hidden message on a page about a talk that never happen about the page in question. Discouraging editing is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. What I am seeing with a note of this nature is a fundamental misunderstanding of the editing process. We already have a problem of people avoiding interaction with certain projects and notes of this nature just exemplify the problem of ownership. We should not go out of our way to discourage the normal editing process. As for the boxes.... I also think a one revert rule would be a good idea in principal ...but there will still be edit wars because the editors involved will each take there turn reverting. What is needed is an understanding of the types of readers we have and the different ways they can consume information. -- Moxy (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

  • Aside from the more complex issues relating to infoboxes generally and the weight to be given to hidden text, there is a simple issue raised by the OP that ArbComm ought to resolve expeditiously: its boilerplate language concerning consensus is just plain wrong. More often than not, consensus is established by routine editing. We establish standard forms and practices by trial and error, and many, many matters are resolved without the need for formal discussion to establish consensus. Arbcomm's language does not recognize this, and enables obstructive users to deny the existence of well-established consensus. A long string of clear AFD outcomes turning on a particular point, for example, establishes consensus, but it's common for an irredentist editor to simply deny the existence of that consensus because there has been no central discussion and no incorporation into guideline language (usually because the level of detail is too fine). Consensus, like policy, is often established simply by what we do, and the ArbComm language cited by the OP denies that basic point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

I support the position of Laser Brain and others that we need discretionary sanctions to be authorized for infoboxes. Disputes are blowing up regularly and admins have few ways of dealing with them effectively. SarahSV (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

I agree with Laser Brain and SlimVirgin that discretionary sanctions should be authorized for infoboxes. If nothing else, to allow new voices to be heard rather than the same things from both sides. Frankly, I'd like for BOTH sides to just drop the stick and move on - this is not worth the energy being expended on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am pretty behind on ARCA, but on looking this one over I noticed that the original request appears to be about whether hidden text can be used to advise editors about infobox use on an article when the matter has never been discussed for that specific article. A great deal of the text in the comments that follow is more about infobox use in general, which seems to be the actual (continued) area of dispute. I'm still thinking if there's anything useful we can do here, but on a first look, I'm not enthusiastic about the idea that the fact of a status quo can be explicitly cited as "consensus" without any actual discussion in support, even in something as minor as a hidden text comment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm a little disappointed, although not surprised, to see that a comment about hidden text immediately gets picked up as an argument in the broader infobox dispute when the first two sentences of my earlier comment explicitly highlight which of those two things we've been asked to comment on here. For the avoidance of doubt, I'd find a hidden text comment saying "there is consensus for this infobox, so don't remove it" just as off-putting as one that says "there is consensus against an infobox, so don't add one" if in fact there had been no discussion one way or the other. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • John Cline, I certainly didn't intend to imply that this request was in anything but good faith. But I think consensus among the arbs who have commented is pretty clear at this point. I agree with Guerillero below that if people are interested in discussing DS for infoboxes, that would be better suited to a new request - sorry for the BURO but this dispute is broad and long-standing enough that it's worth getting the process right, so we don't just end up causing a new argument about how arbcom screwed everything up again :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Opabina regalis. At first glance this request seems like a fair question, but at second glance it is loaded--whether this is what John Cline intended or not (I have great trust in his good faith) is not relevant. If this refinement could lead to editors assuming a consensus based on a hidden comment whose origins may be murky, then we are doing ourselves a disfavor and, rather than suggesting discussion (in whatever shape or form), we could be allowing non-discussion to become a basis for consensus. I do not think that is a good idea. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What they said. Anyone can add hidden text. I'd want to see a discussion on the talk page backing that hidden text. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues above, and am not inclined to adjust the wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I am not in favor of adjusting the wording at this time. As for DS, I would rather that be its own thread --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues, both that if hidden text is used there needs to be consensus for the inclusion of hidden text and what it says plus that I'd rather not adjust the wording at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agree with my colleagues to not modify this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin at 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Terms under which my ban was suspended
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • I request that point #2 (the "editing restriction") be lifted.

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

I’d like to request an amendment to #2 of my set of restrictions laid out by the Arbitration Committee in March of 2014. [42] These terms were deemed necessary in order to lift my site ban, which was enacted in May 2012. I agreed to these terms and my site ban was lifted around 2.5 years ago.

Point 2 in this set of restrictions prohibits me from editing outside the narrow range of topics defined as being “about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs and editing any talk or process pages reasonably and directly associated with improving the quality of those articles.” I request that this prohibition be lifted and allow me to return editing a normal range of Wikipedia articles. Note that I am not asking to have any of my other restrictions lifted at this time, neither the others included in the appeal restrictions nor my 2010 topic ban.

During the time since my appeal, I have made numerous contributions to paleontology articles and have not been involved in any disputes or conflicts. Just recently I finished the Specimens of Archaeopteryx article, and hope to bring it up to GA status in due time. I’ve added numerous artworks and photographs to Commons. [43] However, my range of interests and abilities far exceeds paleontology and has expanded especially since my site ban over 4 years ago. I am now entering a PhD program in psychology this fall, I have started doing professional bird photography, and have published numerous writings on things like genetics, radiometric dating, and religion. My current restrictions prevent me from editing in any of these areas, even from adding my bird photographs to articles on modern birds. Further into the future I hope to finish the Mental chronometry article, which has remained half-finished since I was working on it six years ago (and is a topic I have now done actual research in).

I can say with confidence that allowing me to make content edits to Wikipedia writ large will not lead to any misbehavior and will only benefit the topics I know best. Note that my original site ban was enacted over WP:SHARE, but I have not shared an IP address with another editor since well before my ban was lifted.

Lastly, I request that user:Doug_Weller recuse from matters relating to the race and intelligence arbitration case, because of his involvement in disputes covered by that case before he became an arbitrator. Here are some examples of him participating in content disputes on the Race and intelligence article: [44] [45] [46] [47] I can provide more examples upon request.

Re: @Doug Weller: & @Drmies: My site ban was an amendment to the R&I arbitration case, and I understand the suspension of the ban (and accompanying restrictions) to be amendments to the same case. So I was under the impression that what I’m asking Arbcom to modify is an aspect of the R&I case, even though it doesn't relate to the topic area itself. Regarding the recusal question, there is a more significant example I haven't mentioned here because it's best to not discuss it in public. May I raise the additional example on the Arbcom mailing list? Please bear in mind that I'm about to move, so I may not be able to contact the list for another few days. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

I haven't seen any issues regarding this editor, and from the brief check I gave they seem to be abiding by the restriction and editing in accordance with policies and guidelines. There is also the fact that this area is under Discretionary Sanctions, so loosening the ban is fairly low risk. In fact, it might even be a rare example of an Arbcom-banned editor returning to good standing (which we presumably want to happen more often). Given all of this, I see no reason to decline the amendment request. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston (re Ferahgo)

This request is asking for Ferahgo's narrow topic restriction (to paleontology) be lifted but is not asking that her ban from race and intelligence be modified. The R&I ban seems to have been imposed under discretionary sanctions by User:NuclearWarfare in 2010. The committee's 2014 set of restrictions also wanted Ferahgo to refrain from initiating dispute resolution unless the committee's permission was obtained first. That provision must still be in effect. I recommend that a clerk review all the restrictions at the bottom of WP:ARBR&I and be sure that any obsolete provisions are struck out (regardless of what happens in the current request). For example, at the bottom of the case page, Ferahgo's site ban is still shown as being in effect. Whoever fixes the case page might also update Ferahgo's entry in WP:EDR as required. At this time I would not advise lifting Ferahgo's topic ban from race and intelligence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I agree with EdJohnston in thinking that there is no reason to lift the Race and Intelligence topic ban. WP:SHARE was the listed justification for the topic ban, but there were certainly other problems with her editing at the time. As to whether the editing restriction should be removed, I would say go for it. NW (Talk) 18:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

A topical restriction to one particular topic, rather than from one is rather aberrant and seems detrimental and poorly conceived. It may well be that an editor does not do well in a particular area and should be fenced off from it and anything related to it, but the fact that an editor does particularly well in one area does not logically mean they can only do well in that area, when there are literally millions of topics available to work on, and the editor's only been a problem (quite a long time ago) in one of them that has little intersection with many of them. I agree with EdJohnston's more detailed notes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion: Ferahgo the Assassin editing restrictions modified

Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area in October 2010, site-banned in May 2012, and unbanned with editing restrictions in March 2014.

  • The March 2014 requirement that Ferahgo is restricted to "editing articles about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs and editing any talk or process pages reasonably and directly associated with improving the quality of those articles" is rescinded. The other restrictions that accompanied the unban remain in force.
  • The 2010 topic ban from the race and intelligence topic, originally issued under discretionary sanctions, remains in force and is adopted by the arbitration committee. This topic ban may be appealed via WP:ARCA.
  • The two-way interaction ban between Ferahgo and Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains in force.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain/recuse
Discussion
Note that the committee received by email a request that Doug Weller recuse from this matter. By unopposed majority vote, this request is declined. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=735728640"